By definition, you have just labeled yourself a potentially dishonest, untrustworthy liar.

LOL. So because I may choose to spare my mother's feelings and tell her I loved the dinner she cooked, even though I didn't, I'm therefore an untrustworthy person? Well all right then.

Logged

"Two hands working can do more than athousand clasped in prayer." – Anonymous-----"Properly read, the Bible is the most potentforce for atheism ever conceived." – Isaac Asimov-----"The government of the United States is not,in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams

BibleStudent, consider the following hypothetical, one that is often used in ethical philosophy lectures: If you were in Nazi Germany, and you had some Jews well-hidden in your attic, would it be morally right to tell the truth to a Gestapo officer who came by to ask you if you had any hidden Jews in your house? Or would it be better to lie?

I never claimed that lying always has negative effects, because it doesn't. It depends on the lie.

I see. So, you have the gift of an ‘evolved’ ability to accurately discern when it is okay to lie and when it is not? Do your friends and family know this ? Do they know that sometimes you may be inclined to short them on the truth because you feel it’s okay ? Unless they are privy to the entire content of the code you live by, how can they, or anyone, fully trust you ? By definition, you have just labeled yourself a potentially dishonest, untrustworthy liar.

Hate to break it to you, but I think his friends, family, and just about everyone in the entire world is already under the assumption that people will lie in certain situations.

LOL. So because I may choose to spare my mother's feelings and tell her I loved the dinner she cooked, even though I didn't, I'm therefore an untrustworthy person? Well all right then.

Why wouldn't you tell the truth in that case? Frankly, your mother would probably be more inclined to respect your truthfulness than your dishonesty if she knew about it. My family (including my children)and my friends all know that I am a staunch believer in telling the truth. As a result, my wife, for example, substantially appreciates my honesty when she asks me about how she looks in a certain article of clothing....or how a meal tastes, etc. It's just silly to lie in order to coddle to someone's sensitivities. A lie is a lie is a lie. Besides, as I mentioned, if you are viewed as someone who will knowingly stray from the truth, your integrity may be called into question when it really matters. I doubt you care but, frankly, I wouldn't trust you very much knowing this about you and you might be surprised to learn what your family and friends might think if they knew you were a willing liar, too.

BibleStudent, consider the following hypothetical, one that is often used in ethical philosophy lectures: If you were in Nazi Germany, and you had some Jews well-hidden in your attic, would it be morally right to tell the truth to a Gestapo officer who came by to ask you if you had any hidden Jews in your house? Or would it be better to lie?

I would tell the truth and let God's sovereignty rule the day. What would you do ?

"Right" is subjective. One of the only ways you can argue about morality is to give a situation where you'd expect the other person to contradict their morality.

If "right" is subjective, then please explain to me how the Gestapo was wrong for doing what they did ? I believe that what they did was evil and wrong based on the moral code of the Bible but since you claim morality is subjective, on what grounds do you accuse them of being wrong ? You're digging yourself a hole here so be careful how you answer.

And if throwing darts at my character by calling me 'insane' and an 'a**hole' fascinates you somehow...or you're trying to impress someone then, by all means, have at it. It doesn't disturb me in the least.

Because that's how my mother raised me. She always told me to compliment the meals people cooked for me, even if I didn't like them, and I always agreed to this. And to this day, I still do this, because I have yet to see anything morally wrong with it. However, if I were in a situation where a friend was experimenting with new recipes and wanted an honest critique, then I would be honest, but in most other cases, I would just tell someone that I did like the meal.

Quote

I doubt you care but, frankly, I wouldn't trust you very much knowing this about you and you might be surprised to learn what your family and friends might think if they knew you were a willing liar, too.

And frankly, I wouldn't trust you very much knowing you would happily tell the truth to Hitler's Nazis about the location of the Jews in your attic, thus resulting in their murders.

And considering my family does the same thing I do and even taught me to do this, I can assure you, they wouldn't think it to be wrong.

Logged

"Two hands working can do more than athousand clasped in prayer." – Anonymous-----"Properly read, the Bible is the most potentforce for atheism ever conceived." – Isaac Asimov-----"The government of the United States is not,in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams

All other instances of pharaoh's hard heart occur after yhwh hardened it.

edit - crap. aaron123 beat me to it. And more thoroughly.The story states over and over that god worked his magic on the Pharaoh. How could Pharaoh possibily be responsible for the hardening of his heart? The story is unambiguous about Pharaoh being mind-controled most of the time.

First, the part I bolded was not in my post and is wrongly quoted. Please fix that.

You assert that God somehow cast a spell (or some such thing) on Pharaoh in order to harden his heart. Nothing could be further from the truth. God is simply stating what He knows will be the case when Moses approaches Pharaoh and the miraculous displays of God’s power are made manifest.

I cannot see how that is. It says very plainly in all those quotes provided by Aaron123 and me that yhwh hardened pharaoh's heart. What you are saying here is a post hoc rationalization to avoid dealing with the idea that yhwh was not a nice guy. Yhwh tortured the Egyptians just to make itself famous. But don't worry. No real Egyptians were harmed. It is just a story.

When God says that He will harden Pharaoh's heart, He is stating what He knows will be the effect that His planned miracles will have on Pharaoh's heart. 1 Samuel 6:6 further attests to this correct interpretation.

So however you slice it, when you are an omnipotent and omniscient deity, the buck stops with you. yhwh knew that its course of action would cause a certain response. What is the difference? That does not shift the responsibility onto the pharaoh. yhwh could have used another approach that caused no human misery (omnipotent, remember?) but did not. yhwh could have found a solution that ended with everyone parting amicably, yet instead it chose a rather vindictive and zero-sum approach. Kind of like what an iron age nomad would do. Coincidence? I think not.

"Right" is subjective. One of the only ways you can argue about morality is to give a situation where you'd expect the other person to contradict their morality.

If "right" is subjective, then please explain to me how the Gestapo was wrong for doing what they did ? I believe that what they did was evil and wrong based on the moral code of the Bible but since you claim morality is subjective, on what grounds do you accuse them of being wrong ? You're digging yourself a hole here so be careful how you answer.

I accuse them of being wrong based on my own moral code. Are you going to tell me that my moral code is worthless because I don't believe that an omnipotent being supports me or created them, or that I won't exist forever?

Quote

And if throwing darts at my character by calling me 'insane' and an 'a**hole' fascinates you somehow...or you're trying to impress someone then, by all means, have at it. It doesn't disturb me in the least.

Why don't you tell everyone you know that you'd rather let them die than tell a lie. "Insane dumbass" will be one of the nicer things you'd hear.

BibleStudent, consider the following hypothetical, one that is often used in ethical philosophy lectures: If you were in Nazi Germany, and you had some Jews well-hidden in your attic, would it be morally right to tell the truth to a Gestapo officer who came by to ask you if you had any hidden Jews in your house? Or would it be better to lie?

I would tell the truth and let God's sovereignty rule the day. What would you do ?

I would follow my compassion, which dictates that I lie to the Nazis. If you consider "God's sovereignty" to agree with the slaughter committed by the Nazi regime, then that speaks poorly of "God's sovereignty".

"Right" is subjective. One of the only ways you can argue about morality is to give a situation where you'd expect the other person to contradict their morality.

If "right" is subjective, then please explain to me how the Gestapo was wrong for doing what they did ? I believe that what they did was evil and wrong based on the moral code of the Bible but since you claim morality is subjective, on what grounds do you accuse them of being wrong ? You're digging yourself a hole here so be careful how you answer.

And if throwing darts at my character by calling me 'insane' and an 'a**hole' fascinates you somehow...or you're trying to impress someone then, by all means, have at it. It doesn't disturb me in the least.

Hey everyone, it's a Bible Student!!!! This means we finally get to know some stuff from a true authority. Maybe he can start by telling us exactly who wrote Genesis, and why. And bonus if he can prove it!

I cannot see how that is. It says very plainly in all those quotes provided by Aaron123 and me that yhwh hardened pharaoh's heart. What you are saying here is a post hoc rationalization to avoid dealing with the idea that yhwh was not a nice guy. Yhwh tortured the Egyptians just to make itself famous. But don't worry. No real Egyptians were harmed. It is just a story.

You obviously have your mind made up and are going to dismiss outright any alternate interpretations.

And frankly, I wouldn't trust you very much knowing you would happily tell the truth to Hitler's Nazis about the location of the Jews in your attic, thus resulting in their murders.

That's because you're willing to lie and I'm not. We have opposing viewpoints on when it is okay to lie. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I am of the belief that it is never okay to lie and to trust God in my obedience.....you are okay with telling what I think we refer to as a "little white lie."

I would follow my compassion, which dictates that I lie to the Nazis. If you consider "God's sovereignty" to agree with the slaughter committed by the Nazi regime, then that speaks poorly of "God's sovereignty".

You lack a basic understanding of the Biblical account regarding mankind's descent into depravity and how God's providence is at work.....or, you are familiar with it and have chosen to disregard it.

I accuse them of being wrong based on my own moral code. Are you going to tell me that my moral code is worthless because I don't believe that an omnipotent being supports me or created them, or that I won't exist forever?

1. You say the Nazis were evil and wrong for the torments they inflicted upon the Jews.2. The Nazis, at the time, felt they were acting rightly by exterminating a certain race.3. Since morality is subjective (as you said), then how is it possible that either of you are wrong ?

Morality is either subjective or it isn't. You're saying it's subjective EXCEPT when it involves......

Why don't you tell everyone you know that you'd rather let them die than tell a lie. "Insane dumbass" will be one of the nicer things you'd hear.

Same as above- You lack a basic understanding of the Biblical account regarding mankind's descent into depravity and how God's providence is at work.....or, you are familiar with it and have chosen to disregard it. Our duty is to obey God. If the consequences of that obedience are disturbing to you then you have already written off God's existence and there is no way to counter that.

I'm be sure your friends and family would be happy to know that they can't trust you to protect them because you're a dumbass. You value your own ego over their lives.

Ego is not at work here. In the hypothetical that was given, my admission of the hidden Jews would have likely resulted in severe punishment, perhaps even death, to myself as well.

Speaking of ego, isn't it you who are subjectively creating your own moral code to suit your own egotistical and selfish desires? You can call me foolish or whatever you choose. I call it being principled and committed to a belief system which is ordained by the God of the Bible.

We have opposing viewpoints on when it is okay to lie. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I am of the belief that it is never okay to lie and to trust God in my obedience.....you are okay with telling what I think we refer to as a "little white lie."

Yep.

Quote

Most people don't think it's wrong but that doesn't make it any less of a lie. People try to rationalize their lying ways all the time. Where do you draw the line?

I never said it wasn't a lie. And I've already answered the question on where I draw the line. I made the point about lying being right or wrong depending on its negative effects, and that's how this whole debate got started.

Logged

"Two hands working can do more than athousand clasped in prayer." – Anonymous-----"Properly read, the Bible is the most potentforce for atheism ever conceived." – Isaac Asimov-----"The government of the United States is not,in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams

If "right" is subjective, then please explain to me how the Gestapo was wrong for doing what they did ? I believe that what they did was evil and wrong based on the moral code of the Bible but since you claim morality is subjective, on what grounds do you accuse them of being wrong ?

It's interesting that your example is of people with "Gott Mit Uns" (God is with us) on their belt buckles. Apparently the absolute moral code of sixty-one million German Christians didn't do much to stop the atrocities.

Anyway, I accuse them of being wrong because my personal experience and study of history, philosophy, and psychology all suggest that intentionally causing harm to others should be avoided. Of course, this is not anabsolute rule. For example, I would not hesitate to cause harm when necessary to defend the innocent or liberatethe oppressed. On the other hand, someone telling me a sky-fairy ordered the mass murder of innocent peoplewould never be a reasonable justification.

Logged

If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. — Paul Dirac

1. You say the Nazis were evil and wrong for the torments they inflicted upon the Jews.2. The Nazis, at the time, felt they were acting rightly by exterminating a certain race.3. Since morality is subjective (as you said), then how is it possible that either of you are wrong ?

Morality is either subjective or it isn't. You're saying it's subjective EXCEPT when it involves......

That's double-talk.

There are people in this world who dislike some of the foods you do. Does that mean you stop saying things like "Chocolate is delicious!"?

Quote

Same as above- You lack a basic understanding of the Biblical account regarding mankind's descent into depravity and how God's providence is at work.....or, you are familiar with it and have chosen to disregard it. Our duty is to obey God. If the consequences of that obedience are disturbing to you then you have already written off God's existence and there is no way to counter that.

Our duty is whatever we choose it to be. There are plenty of people here who would rather burn in hell than violate their own morality.

Quote

Ego is not at work here. In the hypothetical that was given, my admission of the hidden Jews would have likely resulted in severe punishment, perhaps even death, to myself as well.

Sorry, no retconning your answer. You said the reason you'd do it was because you don't want to tell a lie.

Quote

Speaking of ego, isn't it you who are subjectively creating your own moral code to suit your own egotistical and selfish desires? You can call me foolish or whatever you choose. I call it being principled and committed to a belief system which is ordained by the God of the Bible.

It's not having an ego that most people have a problem with; it's valuing it over human lives. You've demonstrated how little human lives mean to you compared to your own ego.

Honestly, are you trying to push people even further away from Christianity or something?

"Merriam Webster" defines the word "liar" simply as a person who tells lies. Since you tell lies (by your own admission), you are technically a liar and it shouldn't bother you to be called one. Right?

You obviously have your mind made up and are going to dismiss outright any alternate interpretations.

I would not say that at all. I would say I am open to a new, different explanation, but it has to make sense and correlate to what is written. Your failed on both criteria. If I had to pick, I would say it failed harder on not matching a plain reading of the text.

I also took the time to point out that even if you had it your way, it was still yhwh who made it happen. You did not even respond to that. Instead you gave me a very dismissive and disrespectful dodge. I do not appreciate that. Please answer my points.

"Merriam Webster" defines the word "liar" simply as a person who tells lies. Since you tell lies (by your own admission), you are technically a liar and it shouldn't bother you to be called one. Right?

You can't simply label people as liars, because no one lies all the time. But I suppose labels like that make the world easier for people like you, right?

"Merriam Webster" defines the word "liar" simply as a person who tells lies. Since you tell lies (by your own admission), you are technically a liar and it shouldn't bother you to be called one. Right?

"Merriam Webster" defines the word "liar" simply as a person who tells lies. Since you tell lies (by your own admission), you are technically a liar and it shouldn't bother you to be called one. Right?

The word 'liar' is usually associated with people who lie left and right about everything, big or small. But, if telling insignificant lies occasionally makes me a liar, then no, I can't say that it bothers me.

Logged

"Two hands working can do more than athousand clasped in prayer." – Anonymous-----"Properly read, the Bible is the most potentforce for atheism ever conceived." – Isaac Asimov-----"The government of the United States is not,in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams

I would follow my compassion, which dictates that I lie to the Nazis. If you consider "God's sovereignty" to agree with the slaughter committed by the Nazi regime, then that speaks poorly of "God's sovereignty".

You lack a basic understanding of the Biblical account regarding mankind's descent into depravity and how God's providence is at work.....or, you are familiar with it and have chosen to disregard it.

I go only by what you say, rather than going by what you do not say. If what you say has another context that makes it something non-heinous, then the onus is on you to provide it, rather than on me.

That makes me a web designer, so I can help you with your avatar problem, if you want.

Why do you feel the need to tell me in every one of your responses that you do not like my avatar? I understood you the first time.

Logged

"Two hands working can do more than athousand clasped in prayer." – Anonymous-----"Properly read, the Bible is the most potentforce for atheism ever conceived." – Isaac Asimov-----"The government of the United States is not,in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams